Malema knows 4GW

The media recently reported on a Twitter conversation, wherein Julius Malema was asked "They say you organize farm murders." Malema responded with: "Maybe, Maybe not".

White people, and many others, throughout South Africa were infuriated. But a friend had this to say:

This is good 4GW. Completely deniable if it comes to court action ("I was saying that about the Boer song, not me personally." Plus his culture is fine with weasel words and weasel actions). And gives him a big moral level boost from his supporters. It comes off like thumbing his nose (his supporters love him more, become more bold) and it's deniable if the enemy tries to use it against him. The fact that he'll beat any charges related to it gives him a second moral level boost from a three word tweet.
Emboldens his support base. Co-opts the farm murder movement by essentially assuming a leadership role because now the farm murderers look at him and they also wonder "is he the one giving orders?" (If there is an organised farm killing movement vs distributed movement vs they just make good targets).
This is a master stroke.
He knows his enemy well. They'll do exactly one of three things. Leave the country (he appears to win, even while eroding his money supply). They get another excuse for a 2 minute hate and vent against him, while continuing to produce only to be plundered and thus support him. Or they do nothing different and bury their heads in the sand and continue to provide financial support for his side (tax revenue), provide a unifying enemy (a.k.a. hatred fodder) for his side (like Jews for WW2 Germans - yes, I know that's an oversimplification, but it's a commonplace), and by continuing like this they contribute to the low opinion the rest of the country has of them (a culture that responds/respects force, due to short time preferences and cultural history will only lose respect for another culture that lets itself be plundered).
Moral level win (for his side, degraded moral level for his enemy). Physical level encouragement for farm murderers. Mental level messing with his enemy's minds. This is the kind of thing Heartiste would crow about if it wasn't against his preferred side.
The only way it backfires is if it increases resolve amongst his enemies. But soy boys and shrill shrikes don't really do "resolve".

Malema definitely appears to be the Bantu nations' Grey Champion in this Fourth Turning. Will the non-blacks find their own champion, or will they disappear from history?

A Fathers' Day encomium

Today we celebrate men who love their children. Men who protect their children and men who provide for their children. This is my way of honouring my father.

We all have fathers. Mine raised me well, teaching me many manly arts, being an example to me of what it means to be a man. He taught me to shoot, he taught me how to sharpen a knife, and he taught me the duty a father has to protect his wife and children. He shielded me from my mother's womanly overprotectiveness when she didn't want me playing rugby, and he was there to watch every match of every sport I played. He helped push me in a productive direction when I had none of my own, and he supported me when I tried different paths.

Now he is not only a father to many, but a grandfather to many as well. His grandchildren love him too, and I can see the joy in their eyes whenever they see him. With his children, and his children's children, he truly believes "for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

He did his best to protect his family, and he did his best to provide for his family. No more needs be said, for there is enough glory in this for any man.

Anarcho-tyranny in South Africa: Lights are going off

In South Africa, there were rolling black outs and planned load shedding on the electricity grid about a decade ago, because there was not enough capacity available in the system. That was a failing of government, both in its state-owned corporation Eskom and government proper, but it was incompetence.

Now there is once again load shedding, this time because protesting workers will not allow staff or supplies to enter certain of Eskom's power stations. This is not incompetence, it is anarcho-tyranny.

The workers are by law not allowed to strike - they are an essential service, to use the government's phrase. And yet, they strike without being arrested. Moreover, despite intimidation, hijacking and sabotage already being illegal, Eskom has felt it necessary to get a court interdict prohibiting the strikers from intimidation, hijacking and sabotage. This is the chaotic anarchy. The police, as part of the state which owns Eskom, are doing nothing to force these criminals to obey the law. That is more anarchy. I assume Eskom, as with most companies during strike season, have implemented a no-work-no-pay policy. But with protesters using intimidation against scabs, and blocking entrances, these scabs must either go without pay or use force of their own to get to work. And knowing the South African justice system as I do, I am sure anyone using force against criminals to go do the job they by law must do, would be prosecuted by this same state allowing the criminals free rein. This is tyranny.

The state currently sits in a lose-lose situation. If they allow the protests to continue, ordinary people will suffer from the load shedding and they will once more witness the powerlessness of the state to enforce order where it is required. If they break up the protests by force, the unintelligent and the communists (for such is what NUM and NUMSA consist of) will become more unruly and possibly violent, as will their poorer and less employed fellow travellers in the areas around the power stations. Either way, the state loses legitimacy.

How can the state escape this catch-22? I'm not sure they can. South Africa is a multicultural country, and it is not sustainable. The productive tribes want people to obey the law, broadly speaking, and be orderly and productive, as they themselves are. The unproductive tribes want to be given what they feel is their due, with no regard for where it comes from or who will provide it, beyond a vague magical notion that white monopoly capital has stolen it all and can just give it back.

These two classes of people cannot long sustain the fiction of unity. Multiculturalism has failed. This anarcho-tyrannical empire of tribes is not united, and must soon separate or collapse into chaos. The sooner the division happens, the less painful it will be. But empires are not in the habit of swiftly seeing reason, and so it must be forced by common people to do the right thing. Separate these nations. End the strife. And let each people live as they see fit.

The Road To Mecca

The Road To Mecca is a two act play by South African playwright Athol Fugard, published in 1984 but set in 1974 in a small village in the Karoo, New Bethesda.There are three characters: Helen, a widowed artist who's lived in the village all her life; Elsa, her young friend from Cape Town; and Marius, the dominee (preacher). Fugard wrote the characters well - I can tell this, because Elsa irritated me to no end.

Helen is an older, apparently childless woman. After the death of her husband, she realises she never loved him. She feels as though she wasted her life, trapped with a man she didn't love, and after dreaming of a magical trip to a beautiful Mecca, she stops going to church and begins building statues of owls and Buddhas and other assortments, and she lines the walls of a room in her house with mirrors and glitter to capture all the light from her candles. She's also suicidal.

Elsa is a white, English schoolteacher in a Coloured school. She likes to teach her schoolchildren to be rebellious, a paladin for their rights. Her love of all mankind doesn't extend to Afrikaners, who she hates and stereotypes as much as any white ever did any other race. She never mentions her own people, either positively or negatively. But she did have an affair with a married man, and after he dumps her, in her alpha widowhood she aborts the baby he never knew of. This aligns well with the freedom she constantly preaches to her friend Helen, as she frees herself of her responsibilities: "I put an abrupt and violent end to the first real consequence my life has ever had." In her grief, which she covers with anger, she vacillates between kindness and cruelty to a young, widowed, Coloured hitchhiker she meets on the 12 hour drive from Cape Town to New Bethesda.

Marius is also widowed and childless, but has not lost his faith. He mourns for Helen's loss of faith as only a beta orbiter could. When the village children began stoning Helen's idolatrous statues, this preacher conspired with the school principal to lecture them and get them to stop. His love for a woman who rejects him and his faith leads him to kindness to her, without once in twenty years - not until the events of the play - calling out her apostasy. And even then it is only a half-hearted resignation to the fact that she is lost, not a denunciation of her ways.

It is a sad story. Two female friends, both lying to each other and concealing the truth, even as they proclaim their love for and trust of each other. One, a woman who dreams of freedom from Christianity and marriage by idolising an evil, patriarchal religious site, never having known the worth and value of motherhood. Another who outright rejects motherhood, threatens another marriage rather than settle for a beta, and continually browbeats her friend even while saying she's only sticking up for her. And a poor chump, who missed out on fatherhood, lost his wife, and now can't win Helen's love or her soul. Sounds like the 80's to me...

Affirmative Action makes you racist and sexist

In South Africa, Employment Equity and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment are legal methods of discrimination based on gender and race. By law, preferential treatment is given to some.

What this inevitably means is that it is harder for one group - those discriminated against - to get a job, and easier for another group - those discriminated in favour of - to get a job. For ease, I will call these groups White Men and Black Lesbians, respectively. And if White Men find it harder to get a job, then those White Men who do get a job will have to be of a higher quality than their colleagues. And if Black Lesbians find it easier to get a job, then some at least of those Black Lesbians will be of a lower quality than their colleagues.

This is a hate fact. A truthful statement which supports a prejudice. And observing this truth, that White Men are more competent than Black Lesbians, is bound to make more people racist and sexist than were before. This is because the red pill of truth will be taken, as a bitter pill or a suppository, any time you are surrounded by facts you can't ignore. It makes "pretty lies perish".

This came to mind because of a news article from South Africa. You see, it is legal to discriminate. But if you suggest that one of the Black Lesbians benefited from the law, it is illegal. In fact, it is "damning" to do so. Despite its obvious truth. Doubleplus ungood. Please do not commit thought crime any more.

So here's a bonus hate fact for you: Eyewitness News loves Big Brother.

He is risen!

Today is Easter. Today we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, after He gave His life to atone for our sins. Today He arose from the dead to minister to us for 40 more days, before ascending to Heaven, where He resides while we wait for His second coming.

Praise the Lord. Our sins can be forgiven, if we but ask. We should be grateful every day for this gift, but this weekend most of all, as we remember the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf.

If you're free today, thank a white man

On 25 March 1807, King George III assented to the Slave Trade Act, which abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. On 1 January 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. These two White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant countries were two of the earliest to abolish slavery. Others lagged far behind - Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery in 1962, at a time when the world was castigating Rhodesia and South Africa for their treatment of uncastrated blacks.

Why is there all this talk of evil white and Western oppression, when they are the ones who freed the slaves? In the thousands of years of recorded history, nobody has done as much to eradicate the scourge of slavery, as have white people. White people set everyone free. It is high time a little gratitude was shown. If it wasn't for white men, there would still be slavery worldwide as there is in Libya today.

If you aren't a slave, you should thank a white man. They're the reason you're free. Let's celebrate this anniversary of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 by thanking white men for ending so much oppression throughout the globe.

DA loses 4GW battle to ANC

Ah. Civilisation. What a wonderful word. It means no worries, for the rest of your days. Well, actually, it means:

an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

Another thing it could mean is:

any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group:
Greek civilization.

I pondered these two meanings after reading of ANC supporters disturbing the peace at a memorial on Human Rights Day commemorating the Langa Massacre. Mayor Athol Trollip, of the DA party, appears to have merely stood by weakly, and done nothing to restore order at his event. I say his event, because as mayor he is responsible for events such as these. In a 4th Generation Warfare world, he lost this battle decisively.

In what ways did he lose? As a representative of the state, he failed to maintain order, which is the state's raison d'être. As a leader, he failed to project strength and instead appeared weak and cowardly. As an opposition to the majority party, his side was shouted down and drowned out.

How could he have done better? Now we come to the interesting part. First, we look at some important facts about the event as it happened, based on the Herald Live article and the embedded video:

1. The ANC used posters with ANC logos to get a lot of supporters to attend.
2. The ANC used government, not party, money to pay for the posters.
3. There was little, or even no, sign of security and police presence.
4. All attendees, ANC and DA, appear to have been poor, non-white township dwellers, presumably from Langa itself.
5. Trollip is an old white guy, who wore a button-down shirt and a suit jacket.

Trollip could have done something beforehand to prevent the chaos. He could have done something at the time to end the chaos. He can do something after the fact to turn defeat into victory.

Before the event, Trollip could have charged an entrance fee for the event. Sure, everyone in the area is impoverished. But a nominal fee tends to keep out the worst of the riff-raff, and donating the funds to a worthy cause eliminates the "greedy white guy" narrative. And if the ANC used municipal funds to pay for posters, the DA could have at least sponsored DA attendees with DA party funds to cover their entrance fee.

Trollip could also have played the same game as the ANC, putting up posters with DA logos for the event, but kept the moral high ground by using party funds instead of municipal funds to pay for them. It is counter-productive to stick to rules of decency and fair play when your opponent fights dirty. Especially when your opponent is also the referee, as is the ANC who control the national and provincial governments. When they go low, don't stand up straight and take the punch to the groin. Fight fire with fire, and pack the audience with your own people.

During the event, Trollip could have embraced the Hama model: Swift and overwhelming force to remove the threat and restore order before anyone has time to complain about the vigour of your response. Once he knew there would be a lot of opposition attendees, he should have made sure he had enough security or police to maintain order. And when the disturbance started, said men should have swiftly removed the troublemakers, preferably to be charged with whatever the South African government calls disturbing the peace. The earlier and faster this is done, the more effective it is. Removing the instigators immediately, and in handcuffs, sends a signal to the followers of the consequences. A somewhat more civilised (first definition above) version of the Israeli method of kneecapping riot leaders with a suppressed .22.

If Trollip didn't want to maintain order, but instead win the battle of recreational rioters, then he needed to embrace a different civilisation (second definition above). Ditch the upper class Western clothing and dress like your audience. Appearances count, and he definitely didn't fit in - his DA supporters looked like the ANC supporters, except in different colours, while Trollip looked like a friendless nerd. Get down in the trenches and fight: Instead of calling for order and being polite with "comrades", match their style. Tell them to "voetsek". Call them names. Speak as though he was one of the people, not the outsider he obviously is. Or at least have a deputy who can do so convincingly, since by his physiognomy I doubt Trollip is capable. This would have been more feasible if the DA had packed the audience with their own supporters beforehand.

Appearing weak as he did has a downside. Most people respect strength more than weakness, especially in non-white nations. But most people also feel sympathy for someone being bullied by overwhelming force. If the crowd feels you have a fair chance, then you must appear strong and win the physical conflict. But if they feel you are faced by insurmountable odds, then losing physically makes the opposition seem immoral. If Trollip wanted to not win the physical conflict and yet win the moral conflict, he needed to not stand on the stage watching the chaos, and instead put some skin in the game. Wade into the crowd and engage with the recreational rioters. It doesn't matter what he said, because the goal is not to calm them down. While calming them down would have won the moral and physical conflict, it's a practically impossible goal. His goal is to appear to be a brave man standing alone against an angry and violent crowd. If he comes out of it bleeding and bruised, so much the better. The optics of him standing up to bullies garners sympathy, and the moral high ground. But he has to be willing to take the punishment and pain. Again, his physiognomy makes that unlikely.

After the event, Trollip could have used the event for publicity in his favour. There is a narrative waiting there for him to seize it: ANC chair throwers disrupt peaceful DA memorial; ANC violence mars DA's respectful commemoration. Now is the time for him to go on the offensive in the media, instead of saying he won't respond to "nonsense". His non-engagement with the media leaves the narrative in the hands of the ANC, as seen by the plethora of ANC quotes in the Herald Live article, and makes him look like a snooty little wussy. Or something that rhymes with that. It's weak, and it lowers respect for him and his party. YouTube should be filled with videos of the chaos, and audio of the DA's narrative.

He could also play up the corruption and political interference aspects. If the ANC used municipal funds inappropriately, charge them criminally and sue them personally. If the police weren't there because of instructions from above, cause a ruckus about politically motivated chaos and anarcho-tyranny. Sue the ANC as a party for their disruption and any injuries. Capitalise on the existing preconceptions of the ANC as corrupt and the police as both incompetent and corrupt.

But perhaps the DA's biggest problem throughout all of this is their confusion over their own identity. Are they a party who wants to control the entire country, or are they a party who wants to espouse Western values of democracy and liberty and order and civilisation (first definition above). Because the two are mutually exclusive. With an 80% Bantu population, you can't win the country without embracing large aspects of Bantu civilisation(s). And that civilisation is African, not Western, as Huntington observed.

As I've previously said, the various nations of South Africa need to separate. They are not compatible. This does not mean that one is better than the other, for their civilisations evolved along with their people to be appropriate to their conditions. Let the Bantu have the land they won from the Khoisan by conquest, only leave the rest of it to those who want a Western civilisation.

Fun With Numbers: More on Hate Facts

A hate fact is a fact which supports an unpopular truth. Hate facts highlight the dangers of hate speech laws, in that they potentially outlaw the truth and mandate lies. This is not only Satanist, but sometimes comical, as when Indiana tried to define mathematical concepts.

Recently I published some hate facts about why the races in South Africa have different levels of wealth and achievement. I presented graphs showing IQ differences between races. Now I am presenting data specific to South Africa, and I will show that if anything, non-blacks are currently underemployed in South Africa compared to blacks.

***

Professor Jordan Peterson has more than once said a person with an IQ below 83 is pretty much unemployable. Assuming normal distributions of IQ and a standard deviation of 15 for all groups, we can estimate an unemployment rate based on average IQs for the races. Using Warburg's figures, with pumpkinperson's potentials in parentheses, we have mean IQs of:

• White 94 (100)
• Indian 86
• Coloured 83 
• Black 65 (80)

Using Infogalactic's z-table to estimate, we get the following unemployment rates if we assume all under-83 IQ people are unemployed and all over-83 IQ people are employed:

• White 23% (13%)
• Indian 42%
• Coloured 50%
• Black 88% (58%)

These figures are all 2 or 3 times the official unemployment rates from Stats SA:

• White 6.6%
• Indian 12.9%
• Coloured 22.9%
• Black 31.4%

What gives? I hypothesise a combination of under-reported unemployment by Stats SA (because as Friedrich Nietzsche said: "Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.") and employment of lower IQs than those proposed by Peterson. The reason I doubt the unemployment figures is that the white unemployment rate is similar to the unemployment rates in most First World Countries, but emigrés from SA to there report that it is easier to find work there. The reason I dispute Peterson is that I know for a fact many people in South Africa are employed merely to give them a job, not to expect anything productive from them. Anyone who doubts this just needs to drive past some roadworks, and then tell me how intellectually challenging it is to stand on the side of a road waving a red flag at every car that passes.

If we back calculate from the official unemployment figures, we can get an "official" IQ cut-off for employment.

• White 71 (77)
• Indian 69
• Coloured 72
• Black 58 (73)

The three non-black races correlate well, around 71. I postulate that the border for employability in South Africa is somewhere between IQ 71 and IQ 83 for non-blacks. But what of our outlier? Is it an outlier if it covers 80% of the population?

If the black employment cut-off IQ is in reality closer to the norm for the other races, then their unemployment rate is much higher than the official rate; disproportionately more compared to the other races. This is possible, if there are many more blacks not looking for work (if you stop looking for a job, you stop being officially unemployed), as well as if there are large rural segments who weren't included as unemployed because of the nature of their lifestyles.

Another possibility is that BBEEE and Affirmative Action have led to large disproportionate over-employment of blacks compared to non-blacks. This is definitely possible - of those flag wavers I mentioned, I have yet to see a non-black one.

Yet another is that blacks are now closer to pumpkinperson's potential IQ than the other races. This would be the popular option with the establishment, since it implies blacks were treated even worse under apartheid than is commonly believed. Or that the post-apartheid government treats them better than non-blacks...

Incidentally, Warburg used the same analogy before I did: Getting rid of whites is as dumb as listening to Nongqawuse. And Peterson gives a mechanism for Diversity + Proximity = War: Diversity leads to inequality; unequal people in proximity leads to violence.

Hate Facts which Malema won't admit are true

I have read news reports which say whites in South Africa earn more than blacks. I have read reports which claim that 23 years after the end of white rule, it is still the legacy of Apartheid which causes this disparity. I have read about politicians like Julius Malema saying whites owe all of their wealth to blacks.

Not once have I seen anyone discussing innate abilities. Not once have I seen racial disparities in IQ discussed. Not once have I seen it said that maybe the majority of the population just isn't smart enough to get a degree and do a skilled job.

Here are some hatefacts for you, in graphical form. If you want a fuller understanding, here's Jayman explaining it better than I could. Imagine what we would see if we tested more than just IQ, and looked for group characteristics in personality. Would that explain even more?

If these groups differ so widely, it is inevitable that there will be huge inequality. This inequality will always lead to unrest. Resentment will fester, and when it explodes it will be violent. As we currently see in South Africa. Riots, rapes, robberies and vicious murders abound. So how do we lower this inequality, given that the differences in abilities won't disappear for generations at least, if at all?

Divide the country! Let the people separate and group into homogeneous communities, or at least more homogeneous than they are now. The more separation, the better. Split the country as the Cape Party wish to do. Once that is done, divide the new countries into provinces and cantons and municipalities. Shift the government power to the local level as far as possible, so we have fractals - lots and lots of small political entities, internally homogeneous.

Everyone will be happier for it. And it doesn't even matter who gets which part of the country. Leave the resources to those claiming victim status. The mines. The productive farmland. Most of the tourist areas. All of the rainfall. Let them have it. Just leave the non-blacks in the dry, empty corner of the country. And let everyone live their lives peacefully.

Antifragility and the Pareto Principle

I've heard the Pareto Principle stated as "80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes", as well as "half the results come from the square root of the number of participants". Adjusting for economies of scale, this implies that the smaller and more decentralised, the better.

If we apply this to politics, we get the (originally Catholic) doctrine of subsidiarity. I can think of two examples of countries applying subsidiarity, although the first hasn't really been decentralised for quite some time now.

The USA is the United States of America. The USA were previously the united States of America. Now a singular empire, the US was originally a confederation of independent and sovereign states. It was during this phase of their history that they developed their reputation for freedom and the industrial backbone that would carry them to superpower status.

My second example is Switzerland, officially known as the Swiss Confederation. A confederation, of 26 semi-sovereign cantons, which is reportedly so loose that many Swiss don't even know the federal president's name. World-renowned for their wealth, they have also had over 200 years of peace.

Decentralising government to the lowest levels possible allows 50 or 26 groups to experiment to find the best solutions to life's problems. It gives a higher proportion of people (square root of the total divided by the total number of people) who are productive. It is a 3rd Generation Warfare solution, elegant in its simplicity.

And it is the antifragile way as well. It opens up options, has a limited downside and a large upside. If one sub-state fails, not all is lost and it takes less for it to recover. But if one sub-state prospers, all of them can learn from the knowledge and experience and wisdom.

This has worked for the largest Christian church in the world; the world's only superpower; a military so skilled even its enemies call it the best they'd ever seen; the country most famous throughout the world for its wealth; and an investor so rich he says he has "f*** you money". It's time to ask: Is decentralisation right for your country too?

How to become David and defeat Goliath

As a follow up to my previous article on the Boeremag, I've just been reading about the First Palestinian Intifada. What struck me most was that the Arab organisers had their rioters and protesters give up the use of weapons, even Molotov cocktails, so that the media's image would be of children with rocks fighting men with tanks. Although to be fair, the Molotov cocktails did do more harm to the Arabs than the Israelis.

This was not a non-violent uprising, like Gandhi's, but it did play off of the same image: David vs. Goliath. With the Palestinians as the Israelite and the Israelis as the Philistine. And Western minds, with their pathological altruism, fall for it every time. Perhaps it is time to recruit it for our own aims. But how does one go about making whites and other non-blacks appear oppressed by the black majority in South Africa?

There are already some international media figures discussing it. Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern and Katie Hopkins come to mind. They are helping to publicise black abuse of whites. But as yet, they haven't spoken of solutions - their YouTube channels would be the perfect place for representatives of the secessionist parties to get their ideas out.

At least one group on Facebook implicitly turns whites into David and blacks into Goliath, although their group's prohibition on racism is likely to stifle the truth of the matter. It is this fear of being called racist which hinders the effort most. Obviously, fear of repercussions is valid. Penny Sparrow was ruined for publicly using racist language, despite all races in South Africa regularly using racist language to describe other races.

This group, Gatvol vir Misdaad, regularly publishes photos of whites injured in farm attacks. These images are powerful, and would do a lot to make the white tribes appear to be David. However, it doesn't do much good if they're only shown in echo chambers. The more people push the boundaries, the better our chances. Sharing stories and photos openly, not only in closed groups, without angry commentary or assumptions about the attackers, helps. Anyone with YouTube skills maklng videos can help. Always being careful to avoid the appearance of overt racism - not because the accusations won't happen, but because it makes it easier to avoid fines and jail.

The other Davidic image to push is white poverty compared to the new black elite's wealth. Images of white squatter camps contrast well with populist commies in designer clothes and mine owners. Most white South Africans have stories of how affirmative action has made finding work harder - especially compared to their parents' era. These stories are powerful, more powerful than wonkish analysis of world economic trends and other rationalisations which try to weaken them. Such stories are ideal fodder for YouTube videos and channels.

Both the violence and economic oppression memes should be publicised broadly, across all social media fronts. Besides the big three of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the alternative social media should be used as well. Because the big three censor, and because the alternatives are implicitly allied with Western Civilisation. Gab and HookTube are the two I know of already.

Cape Water Crisis - an open letter

There is a shortage of water in the Western Cape in South Africa. The Cape Party has solicited suggestions on how to resolve it. This open letter has mine.

Dear Freedom Seekers

I support your desire to solve the Cape Water Crisis. I have previously suggested it as a means to power for your party. Here I will expand on my thoughts.

As shopping centres and large shops bought and operated generators during the rolling electricity black outs, so they could now buy and operate desalination plants. V&A Waterfront, which is on the waterfront, has set aside land for such use. Other shopping centres are not far from the water - there is at least one in Somerset West which is only a few kilometres from the water. These centres can use pooled resources to buy desalination equipment and operate it, either to supply their own plumbing or to sell water to the public. I imagine shopping centres with gyms and showers would be very popular.

I also know of at least one bar on the water's edge. They, and those like them, could and should look into small scale desalination equipment to supply their own needs. Being the only bar with ice and water for the whiskey is good for business.

In my original post, I mentioned licensing for water use. This is an obstacle in the physical realm, but in 4th Generation Warfare, we must remember that the moral trumps the physical. And morally, it benefits the challenger party when the incumbent party (ANC or DA) is the obstacle to people getting enough water to survive. The secessionist parties must be ready to publicly shame the incumbent parties at every bureaucratic roadblock they encounter.

Another roadblock, which has been a huge contributor to the current shortage, is affirmative action and black economic empowerment. Even without the known racial IQ disparity, these programmes would result in more unqualified, unmotivated, incapable people being given authority and responsibility for which they're unsuited. These programmes, and the governing culture they derive from, have led to poor planning by government and poor maintenance of existing infrastructure. They should be abolished. If the Cape does secede, I hope they are abolished. Their failings are obvious after a quarter century. And if the planning and maintenance of water resources had been assigned on merit instead of cultural Marxist victim group identities, the current crisis would almost certainly have been avoided.

My original post was more about solving gang violence than solving the water crisis. But my suggestions for that were similar to the inkblot strategy of counter-insurgency. And again that strategy should apply to this as well. The Cape Party is still small and diffuse. But those members who are active and enthusiastic should work together to solve the problem in a single location, on a small scale first. Identify an area with relatively large support, and solve the water supply problem for that single community first. Even if there is no government assistance, community organisation can be used. In fact, the more the Cape Party is identified with local communities, and the less with existing government bodies, the better for them overall. A stronger sense of community and loyalty divided away from the national and provincial governments is the start of independent nationhood for the White and Coloured tribes.


Yours sincerely

A Fellow Traveller

A Christmas gift

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Today we celebrate the birth of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Our Heavenly Father sent His only son as a sacrifice for our sins. There can be no greater gift than that.

Thank you, Lord.

The Boeremag were always doomed

"However unpalatable the fact, the real reason why we have wars is that men like fighting, and women like those men who are prepared to fight on their behalf."

- Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War

Men love war. For most men, it has a romantic appeal. An appeal to something deep within themselves. Of those men who have experienced the horrors of war, many still crave it. This is a fact of nature.

And so, I can empathise with people like the convicted Boeremag men. They identified an injustice, and planned actions to rectify the situation. You don't have to agree with their opinion about whether whites are persecuted, to put yourselves in their shoes. It is easy to get swept up in the idea of starting a war to make the world better. It happens to all men, from lowly farmers to presidents.

But my empathy doesn't make their choice wise or prudent. Let's look at the situation the Boeremag found themselves in. They are members of a minority, less than 9% of the population, assuming you count all whites. Of those whites, only about 60% are Afrikaners. The Bantu majority are almost 80% of the people. We can safely assume practically every non-white person in South Africa is opposed to a violent white rebellion. Anecdotally, I would say at least three quarters of all non-Afrikaner whites would also be opposed, and about half of the Afrikaners as well. A bit of arithmetic puts that around 3.5% in favour of a white rebellion, against 96.5% opposed. In a strictly conventional fight, confined to the first three generations of modern warfare, those odds are pretty insurmountable.

No matter how skilled the white rebels are militarily, those numbers mean they only have the ability to win tactical engagements. At the operational and strategic levels, they are almost certainly doomed. "Quantity has a quality all its own." I have previously discussed how the dilute dispersion of whites throughout the country isn't in their favour. It is even less so during a war. When you are outnumbered globally, your only hope is to concentrate your forces and outnumber the enemy locally. But at close to 30-to-1 odds, with whites not having a local majority anywhere, that concentration is unlikely.

But luckily for our subjects, it's a 4th Generation Warfare world we live in. Unluckily, that has implications that make their erstwhile plan even worse. In the other generations of war, you only consider the tactical, operational and strategic levels. In 4GW, you must also consider the physical, mental and moral levels. Just as winning tactically doesn't trump losing strategically (as the German Blitzkrieg didn't counteract their two front war against major powers), so winning physically doesn't trump losing morally, or even mentally. Ask the 1970's American military, bewildered at their loss in Vietnam despite their dominance on the battlefield. Or ask an ex-SADF troop, who wonders how the ANC came to power when their military wing was so worthless.

As van Creveld says, there comes a point where the usual calculus of war inverts. Where being a tiny minority gives you more power. Unfortunately for white South Africans, that point hasn't arrived for them yet. The vast majority of blacks in South Africa still see whites as the powerful ruling class. The vast majority of the world still sees whites, no matter where, as powerful oppressors.  And so any violence by whites against another group is seen as immoral. Justified or not. Even many whites seem to feel that way, whether they've been shamed into feeling that way or are trying to signal their virtue. When even your own side sees you as the oppressor, you need to focus on changing the narrative more than plotting to blow stuff up.

And so, for now, violence is not the answer. With luck and wisdom and hard work and God's grace, it may never be. This is not to say that you should not arm yourself and defend yourself if attacked. I am not a pacifist, and violent crime is still a problem. This is to say that a violent rebellion at this point in history is doomed to failure. Even if it isn't betrayed from within, as it seems was the case with the Boeremag. The time for principled defeat, if there ever was such, is not now. Plan for victory.

But a victory requires at least two things. First, a clearly defined goal, so that you know when you have won. And second, the goal must be achievable. The Boeremag had a goal: overthrow and replace the ANC government with a Boer government. That goal is clearly defined, but it is not achievable. There is no sense hoping for the impossible. One must be more realistic. Controlling the entire country with a minority less than 10% of the population is not likely in the foreseeable future. But peace, self-determination and freedom are perhaps possible. Even if you have to cede most of your historical territory to other nations to achieve it.

And while I specifically addressed the Boeremag here, this also applies to many people I've sat around a braai with. The windgat bravery and murkily remembered diensplig training don't change the facts, and won't achieve much if that's all they have to offer. I pray they have more during this Fourth Turning.

The Fourth Turning is Identity War

Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning describe the historical concept of the saeculum, a period of four generations which repeat themselves through history. Each generation goes through a certain phase of life during the four different stages, or turnings, of the saeculum. The turnings last around 20 to 25 years normally, so a saeculum usually lasts around 80 to 100 years.

The turnings are named High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. They can best be imagined as equivalent to spring, summer, autumn and winter. A High is when life is improving after the last Crisis, political institutions have been reformed and life is good. An Awakening is when a moral reformation occurs, while, or perhaps because, the political order remains stable. During an Unraveling, the political order starts to destabilise, usually related in some way to the changes that occurred during the Awakening. A Crisis occurs thereafter, leading to a political re-organisation. The Anglo-American Crises they list go back a half a millennium: Great Depression and World War Two (1929 - 1946); Civil War (1860 - 1865); American Revolution (1773 - 1794); Glorious Revolution (1675 - 1704); Armada Crisis (1569 - 1594); Wars of the Roses (1459 - 1487).

The saeculum is usually specific to a society or culture. There is no requirement that the saecula of different nations or peoples align. However, the closer any two nations are to each other, politically or geographically or socially or however, the more their saecula will align. Much like women's cycles. The most recent Crisis affecting the European peoples, the Great Depression and World War Two, synchronised all of their saecula. All white nations of the world seem to have started their most recent High somewhere around the mid to late 1940's.

Strauss and Howe wrote their book in 1997, and predicted the next American Crisis would start around 2005, with it possibly being sparked off by a financial crash, a presidential election, or an action along the lines of the Boston Tea Party. Well, in 2007 the Global Financial Crisis happened. In 2008 America elected Obama, who holds the record for most children killed by a Nobel Peace Prize winner. And around 2009 the Tea Party movement arose. Sparks aplenty for a Crisis, and we see how the political landscape is changing dramatically.

Trump is the polar opposite of Obama. The identity cracks, barely noticeable in the 1990's and early 2000's, widened under Obama and became gaping chasms during the 2016 election. Which, in hindsight, is definitely a result of the moral reformation which occurred during America's last Awakening, from 1964 to 1984 by Strauss and Howe's reckoning. The mid 1960's brought the Immigration and Nationality Act and Johnson's Great Society. Whether the goals were noble, self-serving or something else, these seminal events were definitely about identity. The Immigration and Nationality Act reformed the idea of what it means to be an American, allowing in non-Americans in such numbers that they would not be able to assimilate, even if they wanted to. It brought in foreigners from cultures totally alien to America's, making assimilation even less likely. And the Great Society tried to eliminate poverty and racial injustice, using programmes that only an academic could convince himself to believe effective. The moral reformation said people are all the same, and where they are unequal it must be rectified.

In the wake of the conquering ethnic nationalism of the WWII bad guys, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, it is perhaps unsurprising that the moral reformation which followed was about equalising all peoples. The political re-organisation of the Crisis moved the world from many heterogeneous nations to two competing globalist systems, relatively homogeneous internally: the capitalist First World and the communist Second World. After the ease and comfort of the High, came the moral reformation of the Awakening. The world did not long stay divided into First World and Second World spheres of influence; soon the Third World became a focus. Decolonisation made the savage nations of the world the moral equivalent of the civilised nations. Equality became the goal, even though there were some like Enoch Powell who foresaw "Rivers of Blood" in the forthcoming Crisis because of this. And others, like Kurt Vonnegut, who mocked the idea.

The First World nations now all have identity at the root of their incipient wars. America is full of blacks, Hispanics and Muslims who don't consider themselves American. They have leftists whites who see whites as bad, and they have right wing whites who see whites as the in-group. Europe is full of Muslims and Africans, who the native Europeans increasingly see as invaders, and who increasingly want to change Europe into something else. The Second World has largely escaped this, as Russia and the Visegrad Group seem to have resisted equalism - perhaps the horrors of equalist communism taught them enough to dampen their Awakening turning, and thus their Crisis turning.

In South Africa, the white population's saeculum remains closely timed to the First World's. After WWII came the High of the start of apartheid, great wealth and stability. From the 60's through the 80's came the Awakening, with anti-apartheid uprisings and the Bush War and international sanctions all reforming morally to say the races are equal. From around 1989 to 2009 was our Unraveling. De Klerk, Mandela and Mbeki presided over the end of apartheid and the start of the rainbow nation. The equality of the races was enforced, with compromises and negotiations. But since shortly after Zuma was elected, the inherent tensions have been pulling the country apart along racial lines. Whites are no longer accepting of second class political status due to affirmative action and BEE, not after the innocent white Born Free generation came of age. Blacks are no longer accepting of second class economic status, not after decades of being told the only reason they weren't as wealthy as whites was white oppression. And the violent crime rampant in the country gets blamed by both on the other: whites say blacks are violent criminals by nature; and blacks say their white-caused poverty is the root of the problem.

The Civil War saeculum in America was anomalous and abbreviated. It caused America to skip over their Hero generation. The Civil War was the bloodiest war America has fought. It pitted brother against brother. It was a short and extremely violent Crisis, and it is not surprising that there was no Hero generation following it. But from this we learn that our choices still matter. History is not foretold. The future is not set in stone. The saeculum will keep turning, no matter what. It is the nature of the world. It is the nature of mankind. But man is not a machine. There is freedom to choose. The choices we make can cause a Crisis to be better or worse. The choices we make can determine which side wins the war, and shapes the next saeculum. As biologists can predict the life cycle of a bee colony, without knowing where they will build their hive or where they will find food, so the saeculum can predict the cycle of history without knowing how it will turn out or which side of a war will win.

How to start from nothing

Some trades are payment first, then delivering value, be it goods or services. An example of this would be buying groceries. Other trades deliver value first, then payment is made. An example of this is eating out at a restaurant. There is another type of trade, exemplified by Stefan Molyneux and Jordan Peterson and others like them, where the seller delivers value first, with no obligation on the part of the buyer to make any payment. Molyneux and Peterson give away knowledge and understanding and advice. They ask you to support them with donations, but they can't make you. Much like a Renaissance lord patronising an artist, those who make payment subsidise the artist and allow the freeloaders to benefit. I'm not sure if that counts as charity, but it certainly makes the world a better place at least some of the time. If nobody patronises the artist, then it's charity by the artist for the freeloaders. If there are patrons, it's charity by the patrons for the freeloaders. With charity either by or for the artist, depending on how much he receives compared to the value he delivers, assuming some mystical 'just price' exists for his art.

Most politicians are like grocery stores. With a poor returns policy. You pay first by giving them political power, based usually on some form of false advertising. Then they deliver, well, let's not call it value. But they perform actions that they will tell you are of value. Unlike the grocery store, you can't return a rotten apple for your money back on the same day. You have to wait years to dispose of the bad apples, and you get nothing back for those who didn't act as advertised. It's the equivalent of having to wait years to throw rotting fruit into the garbage.

What if a politician was willing to deliver value in the same way as an artist in search of a patron was? This may not be as feasible on the larger political stages, but it certainly can be done at the local level. Think of the prosecutor who makes a name for himself by locking up bad guys before running for office. He has shown you the goods he delivers, and you are free to decide if you want to pay for them with your future vote. Or the businessman who brings jobs and prosperity to a town. He has delivered his goods as well, with no obligation on you to pay.

There are now political parties in South Africa without any political power, because they hold no elected offices. Some (see here and here) align with my suggestions for a more peaceful, prosperous and free South Africa. But they can do nothing without political power, be it the ballot box or the bullet box. Media interviews and social media campaigns will only take them so far. They need to deliver value to the people they hope to represent, first. And thereafter ask for payment in votes.

My suggestion is for the secessionists in the Cape to identify ways to deliver value on behalf of their parties, and go out and do just that. There are two big issues in the Cape currently which could be the answer. The water crisis is the first, and for most people the more pressing need. But without government money and political power, it will be hard to make an impact.

The second issue is where the real potential lies. Cape Town has some of the most violent crime in the country, and it is concentrated in the townships. A political party hoping to represent selected ethnic groups could benefit greatly by improving the violent crime rates amongst their peoples. When looked at in this light, the problem appears more manageable. The goal is not to reduce all crime in all of the provinces. It is not even to reduce all crime in all of Cape Town. It is to reduce violent crime in the white and Coloured populations. And since these parties have limited numbers and limited money and limited power, the goal should be to focus their forces as much as is necessary to achieve the goal at a Schwerpunkt. Instead of diluting their efforts to the point of failure.

These parties should ally with one another for the purposes of secession. They should identify a violent ward, in a poor Coloured area, where they have the most community support available. And in that single ward all of their resources should be devoted to improving the violence. But only that ward. Their focus must not spread itself thin. The only reason to look outside that ward is if the nature of the conflicts requires it. This must be their main effort, indeed their only effort. Once that ward has seen the value these peacemakers can provide, the people there will vote them into a seat of power. The first step of a thousand mile journey.

This is not a time for simple solutions which haven't ever worked, like more visible policing or anti-drug presentations at schools. These parties must learn the nature of these violent gangs. Why are there gangs to begin with? Why are they more violent than the norm? How are they financed? How do gang loyalties relate to family loyalties and racial loyalties and national loyalties and religious loyalties? Achieving this goal is a 4th Generation War. It must be fought as such. Just as winning at the strategic level trumps winning at the tactical level, so winning at the moral level trumps winning at the physical level. And what could be more moral than less crime and more peace?

There may be police raids. There may be realpolitik advancement of one gang over others for a Pax Romana. There may be negotiated agreements between them. There may be formation of non-state conflict resolution methods, like a Mafia don refereeing between two of his captains. There may be all of these things or none of these things. But this is the value the political parties need to deliver. If they fail, then they are no worse than the ANC or DA or EFF who haven't solved the problem either - so there is limited downside to this. But if they can solve this problem, then they prove they can do that which the larger parties cannot. That is a huge upside. That is the antifragility they need to grow into a force capable of actually seceding.

And since the antifragile ideal involves having many options with a large potential upside and a small potential downside, the secessionist parties could still try to help with the water problem. This would of necessity be on a small scale. But if they look at the model formed during the recent electricity load shedding, some possibilities present themselves. Shopping centres throughout the country pooled their tenants' resources to buy generators and fuel supplies for use during blackouts. Could businesses or gated communities or some other group of people or businesses pool their resources to buy or hire small scale desalination plants? In theory they could, but they face the problems of water use licensing and pumping and piping costs to get the water from the point of abstraction to the end users. Though this hasn't stopped the V&A Waterfront from providing land for free for such a plant. If these parties become organisers who improve the lives of the people, they prove themselves as leaders worth voting for.

Schooling ain't educating

Best line from this Daily Mail article: "I feel I'm hitting a brick wall."

You will soon, darling, and you're likely to be insol when you do.

These three women have confused schooling for education. They think they are superior to average men because they have, or will soon have, an expensive piece of paper which means less and less as each year passes.

The first describes two types of men she has dated. Those in her peer group find her boring, and would rather party with women who don't require a debate to get them into bed. Those older than her and willing to engage in intellectual conversations either dump her or tell her that she's a "princess". I know her cognitive bias won't let her believe she's at fault, but I suffer no such failing.

The next oldest has now spent a half a decade giving money to a university, and is about give more for another few years. To gain a trade she can improve the world with, you ask? Nay. To study cripples. Not to heal them, mind you. Just to hear about their feelings. I'm sure she could do this for free by finding some veterans, but then she wouldn't have the piece of paper which satisfies her desire to rule her husband, while also making it harder to find a man she's willing to submit to. And she also doesn't believe the honest man who told her that she thinks she's a "big shot".

As a side note which suggests that proles will save Christendom, it seems 51% more working class girls go to university than boys. Why will this save the West? Because the boys go into manual trades and become productive members of society. Or they will become, if their countries deal with their cheap labour glut.

The third one is 41, so the wall has arrived. She paid for two worthless degrees, so she must be really smart! Unfortunately the smart boys weren't sexy and the sexy boys wouldn't put up with her pseudo-intelligence. I honestly don't know why she couldn't find men who want to talk about "psychology and literature", since Jordan Peterson and Heartiste and Vox Day and Roosh V and Rollo Tomassi love psychology. And da GBFM loves literature.

Women want to marry a man of higher status than themselves. Men want to feel that they won't be emasculated for the next fifty years. These women's fathers should have told them this before they mismatched their believed status and their real status. Here's the real psychologist saying the same thing.

Order and nations

ZMan published an article today on Race Realism. In it is this quote:

"All human societies need order, otherwise they look like the Mad Max hellscape of places like Somalia. Order requires authority and that comes when the people being ruled over accept the people and system that provides order. The king is not going to be king very long if no one accept his right to rule. Similarly, people will not tolerate a ruling class that is populated by madmen denying reality. This is, in effect, what brought down the Soviet Empire. Even the beneficiaries of the system could no longer pretend it made any sense."

William Lind frequently mentions that the modern nation-state arose to provide order to the peoples of the world, as the systems before it had become chaotic. These nation-states did closely align with existing nations, and because of this provided order.

But we now have multicultural states with a high degree of anarcho-tyranny. The American state is still run by white people, even if they are establishment cucks and commies. They cannot comprehend the amount of imposed order - oppression, in other words - required to maintain order amongst the other nations within their borders. It often seems as if Detroit and Chicago need levels of oppression similar to those used by Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al-Assad to maintain order. This concept is foreign to whites, even though they realise that Tea Party libertarianism isn't feasible throughout the US. So they settle on a worthless middle ground of anarcho-tyranny: not enough government for the non-white tribes (anarchy); too much government for the whites (tyranny).

The South African state is in a similar situation, although it is not run by the white tribes any more. It is run by people who spent 40 or 50 years seeking less oppression, and working on undermining the state, without giving thought to what would be required to govern the black tribes. It is incapable of or unwilling to police black crime to any civilised degree (anarchy), and it blames whites for all problems and quickly seizes any opportunity to maintain the narrative by punishing even minor white wrongdoing (tyranny).

Perhaps the lack of policing is not even deliberate. I've read at least one black commenter say that whites complaining about crime are just getting what blacks got during apartheid in the black areas. Maybe I only think the South African crime rate is high because my race and culture are adapted to a different level.

And of course, the solution is really as simple as separation of the nations. Whether it's "they have to go back" or secession or ending forced integration like Section 8, different groups have different requirements. Those which self-regulate and order themselves need less government, and indeed suffer under too much of it. Those who cannot self-regulate need a harsher form of imposed order, and indeed suffer under too little government - witness the rise of ISIS in the absence of strong secular governments.

How to achieve this without war is the challenge. The closest I have come is a high level suggestion - but until I actually go out and do something about it, can I claim to have any skin in the game? (As an aside, I think Taleb might be my favourite Middle Easterner.) There are now many voices clamouring for such a solution, but I haven't encountered many working towards it or even planning how it could be done. Won't somebody cure my black-pilling?

Centres of Gravity

In the spirit of auftragstaktik, I am stating a goal I wish to achieve, which I assume many others desire as well. The goal is to achieve peace, self-determination and freedom for all people in South Africa.

The strategy I suggest to achieve this goal is separation of the non-black nations of South Africa from the black nations. This would make the country, or countries, more peaceful because it would prevent most of the inter-racial violence now occurring. Most of the remaining racial envy would not be an issue if the previously most advantaged and previously most disadvantaged were not competing for the same resources. This would allow for more self-determination, because the more homogeneous a country the more a consensus is achievable. Grouping the black nations together allows for a more unified black country, and grouping the Afrikaners and Coloureds together allows for a more unified Dutch-descended country. And it is a step towards smaller and less government for all, which means more freedom for all.

To achieve this, it is required to identify centres of gravity acting against a secession of parts of South Africa from one another. I have identified four:

1. Black nationalism
2. Demographic distribution
3. Oppression narrative
4. White guilt

Black nationalism in South Africa has a Weltanschauung which sees South Africa in terms of two groups: whites and non-whites, equivalent to oppressors and victims. The unifying ideology, which can be simplified to blaming the oppressors for all of the problems in the country, has two inherent problems. Firstly, it only unifies for as long as there are oppressors available to blame. With low birth rates and high emigration rates, the white oppressors will not be around much longer to unite the peoples of South Africa. Secondly, it doesn't actually address the true causes of the economic and crime problems in South Africa, nor does it allow for an orderly re-organisation around the other existing fault lines in society once the oppressors are gone. There are other fault lines already, and a sudden crack along them could be chaotic and unpleasant if they are simply ignored until it is too late. Besides the different nations, even within the currently united black race, there are already different economic classes amongst the non-whites. There are those with power and friends in government, and then there are those with nothing but the ability to protest and riot when the government doesn't deliver promised services.

To attack this centre of gravity, two options present themselves. The first is to change the narrative from white versus non-white, to black and (not versus) non-black. Instead of an adversarial world view, it should be seen as one family of related black peoples living as good neighbours alongside another family of related Dutch descendants. Forcing strangers to live in the same house leads to strife, but giving them each their own house with a clear border allows them to become friends. The second option must be done cautiously, as it has the potential to devolve into conflict if approached too swiftly. This is to highlight the natural fault lines in the black race which exist between tribes. This fault line was apparent before Zuma with the talk of a Xhosa mafia inside the ANC, and will become apparent again without an enemy to unify against. However, as part of a secession movement, federalising South Africa, before or after secession, along tribal lines and devolving power from the national government to the provincial or tribal level will empower the tribes without forcing them to compete for power over each other. If the federalising occurs before secession, it also opens up the possibility of one or more of the black tribes seceding as well. This can only strengthen the chances of secession succeeding.

The demographic distribution of peoples in South Africa is highly entropic. The only group with a fairly well defined territory is the Coloured nation. Whites live in pockets spread fairly evenly throughout the country, and there are significant numbers of blacks in the Coloured areas. To concentrate the Afrikaners and Coloureds, and presumptive English and Indian allies, it would be best to focus on an historically justifiable territory. The Cape Colony, with borders existing where the white settlers first encountered the black tribes, can be justified as an area to secede - and this is what the Cape Party proposes already. Two  other problems reinforce this centre of gravity, and those are affirmative action and the white standard of living.

Affirmative action limits the concentration of whites in large companies. This means that to have constantly progressing careers in a world of large corporations, whites must diffuse throughout the country. The relatively high white standard of living means that in the main, they are reluctant to move to a different part of the country and start with nothing. Most would rather emigrate to a higher standard of living. This is natural and to be expected. A possible work around is to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit in whites, and have them game the system by keeping their company small enough to allow them to employ only whites and allied Coloureds and Indians. Of course, this would be best done in the already suggested territory. A big problem exists in two overlapping groups, those of white farmers and Afrikaner nationalists. The farmers will be often be unwilling to abandon their family's heritage and their livelihoods, and the nationalists will often be unwilling to abandon the land of their forefathers. The nationalists can perhaps be addressed by convincing them that the continued existence of their people is more important than where their nation lives. The farmers are more difficult, and I'm not sure I have any good solutions. Some may sell their farms to buy land in a different area to farm, and some may sell their farms to start businesses elsewhere. But boere are stubborn and have the desire to own and farm land in their genes - this is a challenge.

The oppression narrative is the other side of the coin from black nationalism. For blacks, it can be addressed in an Agree & Amplify method. Remove the oppressive white monopoly capital from the rest of the country, and segregate them in their own homeland. Do as the apartheid regime did, and put the non-blacks in the poor part of the country which is mostly just desert and mountain and forest fires. There are plenty of black people in South Africa, already spouting murderous hate speech, who would probably be delighted to talk about pushing whites to one side and cutting them off from the wealth produced in the rest of the country.

For whites, and other non-blacks, the best way to destroy the oppression narrative is probably to attack directly the fourth centre of gravity, white guilt.

White guilt is the tendency of whites to focus on only the past sins of their race and only the past good deeds of other races. It is almost certainly a genetic trait, but that doesn't mean it can't be suppressed in favour of more productive tendencies. So long as whites see themselves as the bad guy, they won't be able to unite and ally with other nations for their own good.

Northwest Europeans, of which Afrikaners and English South Africans are a diaspora sub-group, are highly individualistic. They tend to think of themselves as individuals, which allows them to disassociate themselves from the sinful white oppressors they descend from. The sins of apartheid are the dominant narrative, with no geopolitical context of the time and no comparison to violent crime and anti-white hate crime in the present day. Factually, white guilt can be attacked, but for it to have effect on the majority it must be couched in effective rhetoric. If civil society organisations, like Afriforum or the Institute of Race Relations, can be enlisted to assist, it may be possible to force the SAPS to report crime statistics by race. Judging by the statistics in the US, it is expected that the racial disparities will show whites as the victims more than as the criminals. The same should be done with the South African Human Rights Commission, to highlight the large numbers of black Penny Sparrows. This is all well and good as far as facts go, but spreading the information rhetorically is another issue altogether. I don't know how to achieve this one yet. Perhaps Born Free's - those born after the start of black rule in 1994 - could be enlisted as spokespeople. There are now 23 year olds who have known nothing but black government, who are discriminated against because of previous white governments. I leave this for now in the hands of the memelords.

On a personal level, woke whites can shame their friends and relatives who don't love their own kind. This is easier for Coloureds and Indians, as white guilt isn't a problem for them, only their tendency to view themselves as non-white instead of non-black. But nationalistic love of culture and people should be encouraged. This is already encouraged once a year by the government, on Heritage Day. Do it for another 364 days a year. Be proud of your own. But there is no reason to make it competitive, and indeed it can be counter-productive. Afrikaners celebrating their culture works towards the goal, and Zulus celebrating their culture also works towards the goal. Tribes and nations occur naturally, and so there is a natural gravitational pull of power from government to these natural polities. Encourage it. However, I see cultural appropriation of the braai as acceptable by all.

This is a working idea, so add to it or critique it or improve it.